In his passionate afternoon statement on behalf of intervention into Syria, Secretary of State Kerry just delivered a towering argument for U.S. isolationism.
Yes we're tired of war, he said, but "fatigue does not absolve us of responsibility," he continued, and by "us" he was including the world. "We, collectively," he emphasized--"What are we and the world going to do" about Syria's violation of the warrior's code? Since the Great War there's existed a "clear red line for the international community" when it comes to the use of chemical weapons, hence now we must ask, "What will we do?" when that line has been crossed.
The world must respond, answered Kerry, who went on to itemize the nations and regional organizations doing so.
With words. Other statements. Paper. That's been the global community's reaction to Syria's most heinous, unthinkable war crime. There are no regional troops amassing on Syria's borders, there are no (American-made) tanks cranking up, no (American-made) fighter jets purring and no (American-made) bombs being affixed. When it comes to actual action, virtually all the world's players are inexpressibly reserved.
And why not? Who can blame them? For alas there's one other player who's always willing to be left holding the bag and paying the bloody check.
And yet someday we--the singular we--may take Mr. Kerry at his word, and we'll quite agree: You know what, world? Either get off your ass and help, or we're staying home and you're on your own. These are a collective problems which can only, and in every case, be solved collectively.
We already tried some semblance of that approach in the post-Great War era of the 1902s and 30s, and things didn't work out so well. But it could again hold electoral appeal--and while those particular Paulian voices touting it frighten me all to hell, John Kerry may have just boosted their cause.